Arizona Court of Appeals upholds Prop. 314 allowing state police to enforce immigration at border

The state Court of Appeals has rejected efforts to void a measure approved by voters in 2024 on immigration.

In a new ruling Thursday, the judges upheld Proposition 314. Approved by voters in 2024 by a wide margin, it allows police to arrest those who cross the border at other than a port of entry and charge them with committing a state crime.

In 2025, Living United for Change in Arizona sued, charging that the law has provisions that violate federal and state constitutional protections, ranging from possible discriminatory enforcement to whether the measure failed to provide for a new source of revenues for enforcement.

But Judge David Weinzweig, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said that, in the end, all that is irrelevant: He said that the challenge fails if for no other reason than LUCHA lacks standing to sue in the first place.

The ruling drew an angry reaction from Alejandra Gomez, the executive director of the community organizing group.

"We are appalled that the Court of Appeals has allowed Proposition 314 to stand at a moment when immigrant communities are already being terrorized by an increasingly aggressive federal immigration enforcement apparatus," she said.

Gomez said no decision has been made whether to seek Arizona Supreme Court review.

The most visible part of the law allows state and local police to arrest those who enter Arizona from Mexico at other than a port of entry. They can be charged with a misdemeanor and brought before a local judge.

But it also is crafted in a way designed not so much to incarcerate the border crossers but instead convince them to agree to be deported. That, in turn, means all charges against them would be dropped.

LUCHA argued that the provision is worded in a way that it is more likely to affect its members who share the "race, ethnicity or national origin of the immigrants who enter Arizona from the southern border" and they are more "vulnerable to misapplication" than the public at large.

Weinzweig, however, said the possibility that the law may be misapplied in the future — and to someone who shares the same ethnic background as LUCHA members — doesn't allow them to try to ask courts to halt enforcement of the law.

"Declaratory relief should be based on an existing set of facts, not those which may or may not arise in the future," he wrote.

That conclusion parallels a similar ruling in July by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi. He tossed a challenge to Prop. 314 brought by the Florence Immigrant Rights and Refugee Project noting that the organization had failed to show anyone had actually been affected by the new law.

In Thursday's state appellate court ruling, Weinzweig also rejected the claim that the standards that allow police to arrest border crossers ignore constitutional requirements.

The law provides three options: the officer's own observation, a recording, or "any other constitutionally sufficient indicia of probable cause." While that last provision is not defined in Prop. 314, Weinzweig said all those are the same standards already required for arrest under the Fourth Amendment which protects against illegal search and seizure.

LUCHA fared no better with a parallel attack on how Prop. 314 would be funded.

The challengers pointed out that the Arizona Constitution says any ballot measure that proposes the mandatory spending of state revenues must also provide a new source for those dollars.

Put another way, a ballot measure is invalid if it simply says that any required costs will be picked up from already existing taxes or other sources. And it applies regardless of whether the proposal was referred to voters by lawmakers themselves — as is the case here — or was put on the ballot through an initiative petition of Arizona voters.

In this case, the challengers noted, Prop. 314 requires the state Department of Corrections to transport to the border those who agree to leave the country. And that, the challengers said, is an obligation to spend state resources without a commensurate increase in new dollars.

Weinzweig wasn't buying it.

He said the measure is crafted so the mandatory obligation to transport people to the border actually falls on local law enforcement agencies whose anticipated new expenses are not covered by the state constitutional requirement. And Weinzweig said the only time costs are borne by the state is if the local agency does not have the capacity to hold someone pending voluntary deportation.

"This is a contingency, not a mandate," the judge wrote.

Finally, Weinzweig said there's nothing inherently illegal about Arizona lawmakers — who crafted Prop. 314 and placed it on the 2024 ballot — making enforcement of the proposal contingent on what happens in another state.

It is true that the sections about arresting border crossers and deportation are modeled after Texas SB 4. And the Arizona statute spells out that these provisions in Prop. 314 cannot be enforced here until there is a final federal court ruling on the legality of the Texas measure.

Challengers said that amounts to Arizona lawmakers illegally surrendering their authority to events elsewhere.

A federal appeals court has upheld the Texas law but legal questions remain about whether it is now enforceable. Weinzweig, however, said the status of SB 4 is all irrelevant.

It is true, he said, that the Arizona Legislature may not delegate its power to make laws. But he rejected the claim that what's in Prop. 314 is an illegal delegation or amounts to lawmakers here ceding their power to what happens with the Texas statute.

Gomez, in her statement, said the ruling comes as the Trump administration "continues expanding the reach of immigration enforcement into more parts of everyday life."

"Proposition 314 threatens to pour gasoline on that fire," she said. "It gives Arizona another vehicle to target immigrant communities, drag state and local institutions deeper into immigration enforcement, and force taxpayers to bankroll a reckless law with no clear way to pay for it.”